Improving criminal procedure to cut the number of long, drawn-out trials is an important part of the Government's comprehensive legislation to combat crime and terrorism. Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, is aimed at ensuring swift and effective justice for those involved in crimes such as terrorism, organized crime and white-collar crime. It also fulfills an integral part of the Government's Air India Action Plan that commits to streamlining the prosecution of terrorist offences.
The Bill is the result of a great deal of discussion and consultation with various criminal justice stakeholders, including experts with operational experience in the conduct of mega-trials, the Working Group on Criminal Procedure of the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials, as well as the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to Justice, which includes representatives from the judiciary and the private bar. This work has also been informed by the November 2008 report by former Chief Justice Patrick LeSage and then-Professor Michael Code on their review of systemic issues related to long, complex criminal cases in Ontario.
BILL C-2 AMENDMENTS
Improving Case Management
Appointing a Case Management Judge
Improved case management, particularly in relation to the preliminary phase of the trial, assists in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of large and complex trials. Appointing a Case Management Judge is an essential step toward achieving this goal. Bill C-2 empowers a Case Management Judge to rule upon preliminary issues. This allows earlier resolution of the preliminary issues upon which the remainder of the trial often rests. It also permits the presentation of evidence to the jury to proceed without interruption, to the extent possible.
When appointed, the Case Management Judge is empowered to, among other things:
- promote a fair and expeditious trial;
- ensure, to the extent possible, that the evidence on the merits is presented without interruption;
- impose deadlines on the parties;
- assist the parties to narrow and focus the issues;
- assist the parties to identify the witnesses to be heard at trial;
- encourage the parties to make admissions and reach agreements;
- make decisions upon preliminary issues, including motions on preliminary issues;
- assist the parties to identify the outstanding issues; and,
- hear guilty pleas and hand down sentences.
The early adjudication of preliminary issues facilitates many other aspects of the case, such as case preparation, discussions in relation to case resolution, and providing insight into the duration of the trial.
The Case Management Judge can decide on issues such as:
- admissibility of evidence;
- disclosure;
- expert witnesses;
- change of venue;
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and
- Separate trials for certain accused persons or separate trials for certain counts of an indictment.
The Case Management Judge can also go on to rule upon any issue referred by the judge presiding over the presentation of the evidence on the merits. Furthermore, he or she may preside over the remainder of the trial with a jury, during the presentation of evidence on the merits.
Reduce Duplication of Processes
Joint Hearings
Often, in large complex cases, many of the preliminary issues involving similar evidence are common to a number of cases. One of the amendments allows a joint hearing of preliminary motions involving similar evidence that arise in related but separate trials
Delayed Enforcement of Severance Order
Formerly, where a judge ordered the severance of counts or separate trials for certain co-accused prior to the adjudication of the preliminary issues, the evidence would be presented in each of the resulting trials in support of these preliminary issues. This duplicated efforts and increased the risk of inconsistent rulings. This bill allows a court to delay the enforcement of a severance order allowing a preliminary issue pertaining to more than one accused or count to be decided by one judge only, prior to the severance, thus preventing unnecessary duplication.
Rulings Binding in New Trial Resulting from a Mistrial
The Criminal Code has also been amended so that when a mistrial is declared and a new trial ordered, decisions on certain preliminary issues continue to bind the parties unless the court is satisfied that this would not be in the interests of justice.
Amending Direct Indictments
Under the old regime, if a direct indictment contained a technical error, a new direct indictment had to be preferred, which involved the personal written consent of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. This bill empowers the court to amend technical defects in direct indictments, as is the current practice in the case of regular indictments.
Maintaining Bail/Detention Orders where Direct Indictment is Preferred
The bill also ensures that a new bail hearing will no longer be held when an accused is subject to a bail or detention order for an offence and a direct indictment is preferred charging the same offence or an included offence.
Improving Criminal Procedure
Swearing of up to 14 Jurors
The time required to hear criminal trials has steadily increased over the last decade, especially in the case of mega-trials. This can affect the jury's ability to render a verdict, since it is not uncommon for jurors to be discharged in the course of the trial. This can result in the size of the jury being reduced to below the Criminal Code minimum requirement of 10 jurors to render a valid verdict. To address this concern, amendments in this bill allow for the swearing of up to 14 jurors subject to a random selection process that will determine, after the judge's charge to the jury, which jurors will deliberate. These amendments will come into force October 24, 2011, to allow the Provinces and Territories, who are responsible for the administration of justice, to implement the infrastructure and other changes related to these provisions.
Measures to Improve the Protection of the Identity of Jurors
These amendments ensure that jurors are systematically called in court by their number and that the use of their names is the exception. Furthermore, the court is now able to limit access to juror cards or lists when deemed necessary for the proper administration of justice. This reform initiative improves the protection of jurors' identity and further enables them to perform their duties without fear of intimidation or physical injury, particularly where alleged offences involve organized crime or terrorism.
Preliminary Inquiries - Statement of Issues and List of Witnesses
This provision addresses a discrepancy between the English and the French versions of Section 536.3 of the Criminal Code that relates to the statement of issues and list of witnesses that the party requesting a preliminary inquiry must provide the court and the other party.
-30-
Department of Justice Canada
August 2011
